Tweet
This has always been an apples vs. oranges comparison.
I just bought a BMW M3 and I really like it. It's fast, it handles beautifully, it has a nice leather interior, etc, but it cost almost $80k out the door and it gets terrible mileage and I went through a set of $350 per tire rubber in 10kmiles. But more to the point, a base model Corvette for under $50k is probably faster and will go around corners at least as fast, and even gets better mileage. Or for even less money I could have gotten a Mustang that is also just as fast as the M3, so why did I spend all the money on the BMW? For me the precision of the engine, tyranny and suspension on the M3 were worth the extra $, for someone else the massive torque of the Corvette, or the extremely reasonable price of the Mustangs would be bigger priorities.
The AK is a different rifle than an AR. The AR is more precise but more expensive to build. The AR can shoot 0.5 moawith great ammo but the ammo is more expensive and the gun can be a bit less willing to shoot crap. The AK was designed with a different set of criteria than the AR. But Just as the f-15 was a very different ride than the Mig of the same generation, yet they were compared because they may have ended up shooting at each other, the AK is compared to the AR/M-16/M4, even though they aren't really comparable. It is a bit like comparing the M98 Mauser to the M1, they certainly shot at each other but they weren't really similar in other ways. The AK made sense in the Soviet Union where manufacturing was done under what the west would consider to be some pretty crude conditions. The Soviets knew that the ammo was likely to be inconsistent so they made the ability to shoot weak and powerful ammo with no adjustments a priority. The US had the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing base in the world so the idea that the M-16 would need to shoot sooty steel cased ammo never entered into the design. American commanders felt that accuracy was very important because the US had the resources to train their soldiers to shoot well. Soviet commanders had just come out of WW2 where they were fighting with poorly trained, often illiterate and totally technically inexperienced peasants, so they prized simplicity over all else.
If I were buying a rifle for the US military, with it's air conditioned, internet connected, tents and trillion dollar supply chain then the AR style makes much more sense than the AK, but if I wanted to supply some third world resistance army with a cheap easy to use rifle then the AK starts to look like a good choice.
I just bought a BMW M3 and I really like it. It's fast, it handles beautifully, it has a nice leather interior, etc, but it cost almost $80k out the door and it gets terrible mileage and I went through a set of $350 per tire rubber in 10kmiles. But more to the point, a base model Corvette for under $50k is probably faster and will go around corners at least as fast, and even gets better mileage. Or for even less money I could have gotten a Mustang that is also just as fast as the M3, so why did I spend all the money on the BMW? For me the precision of the engine, tyranny and suspension on the M3 were worth the extra $, for someone else the massive torque of the Corvette, or the extremely reasonable price of the Mustangs would be bigger priorities.
The AK is a different rifle than an AR. The AR is more precise but more expensive to build. The AR can shoot 0.5 moawith great ammo but the ammo is more expensive and the gun can be a bit less willing to shoot crap. The AK was designed with a different set of criteria than the AR. But Just as the f-15 was a very different ride than the Mig of the same generation, yet they were compared because they may have ended up shooting at each other, the AK is compared to the AR/M-16/M4, even though they aren't really comparable. It is a bit like comparing the M98 Mauser to the M1, they certainly shot at each other but they weren't really similar in other ways. The AK made sense in the Soviet Union where manufacturing was done under what the west would consider to be some pretty crude conditions. The Soviets knew that the ammo was likely to be inconsistent so they made the ability to shoot weak and powerful ammo with no adjustments a priority. The US had the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing base in the world so the idea that the M-16 would need to shoot sooty steel cased ammo never entered into the design. American commanders felt that accuracy was very important because the US had the resources to train their soldiers to shoot well. Soviet commanders had just come out of WW2 where they were fighting with poorly trained, often illiterate and totally technically inexperienced peasants, so they prized simplicity over all else.
If I were buying a rifle for the US military, with it's air conditioned, internet connected, tents and trillion dollar supply chain then the AR style makes much more sense than the AK, but if I wanted to supply some third world resistance army with a cheap easy to use rifle then the AK starts to look like a good choice.
Comment